These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Feedback Request - Margin trading and accurate market UI

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Berluth Luthian
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#81 - 2013-11-21 20:56:37 UTC
IRL, there is such a thing as 'financial criminals'. Why not make people who break contracts get a criminal standings penalty and maybe even a faction standing penalty to the NPC broker's corp through whom it was issued. It could be proportional to the ammount that they scam/steal. Allow scamming to continue, but create a kind of cost/risk to it that makes it harder to do. If the person who issues you a contract has a significantly poor rating, then they could be a scammer.
Abdiel Kavash
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#82 - 2013-11-21 21:04:43 UTC
Berluth Luthian wrote:
IRL, there is such a thing as 'financial criminals'. Why not make people who break contracts get a criminal standings penalty and maybe even a faction standing penalty to the NPC broker's corp through whom it was issued. It could be proportional to the ammount that they scam/steal. Allow scamming to continue, but create a kind of cost/risk to it that makes it harder to do. If the person who issues you a contract has a significantly poor rating, then they could be a scammer.

Because of throwaway alts.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#83 - 2013-11-21 21:05:39 UTC
Berluth Luthian wrote:
IRL, there is such a thing as 'financial criminals'. Why not make people who break contracts get a criminal standings penalty and maybe even a faction standing penalty to the NPC broker's corp through whom it was issued. It could be proportional to the ammount that they scam/steal. Allow scamming to continue, but create a kind of cost/risk to it that makes it harder to do. If the person who issues you a contract has a significantly poor rating, then they could be a scammer.



Two points:

a.) Killrights on the player if you sell to their buy order and the order fails.... This would be awesome... but pragmatically people would easily avoid it using alts.

b.) The amount of isk you pay in brokers fees is dependent on your standings with the NPC owning the station. Failed buy orders resulting in standings hits would increase brokers fees and the cost of setting this up. Pragmatically though, the profit from a well-executed margin trade scam will trivialize these fees.

Arthur Aihaken wrote:
If a market order fails, the player should forfeit their escrow for that buy order and their Margin Trading skill gets reset to I.


You can drain the isk in your escrow by selling yourself items right after you set up the buy order. This is often done to prevent clever marketeers claiming the isk in your escrow account when you setup an obnoxiously overpriced buy order.
Chigurh Friendo
Fight The Blob
#84 - 2013-11-21 21:07:22 UTC
Noriko Mai wrote:
Chigurh Friendo wrote:
Rise,

I have a third solution, which basically covers how I manage my own use of the Margin Trading skill as a market player when handling the various debts that I owe to people.

The solution:

For any character with open buy orders (and the margin trading skill), only allow ISK transfers up and to the amount of the difference between the 'wallet balance' and the 'additional isk required to cover' for buy orders.

In practice, supposing that all buy orders filled instantly, the difference between 'wallet balance' and 'total isk required to cover' is the amount of liquid that a player has at their disposal, which they can freely transfer.

Thus, the solution would be that players can still take advantage of the Margin Trading skill to leverage themselves on the market in order to profit at the fastest possible rate when they are up-and-coming marketeers, but it doesn't allow for the abusive 'empty margin trading buy-order' that exists under the current system.

Proposal Summary:

Maximum ISK Transfer Amount = Wallet Balance - "Additional ISK Required to Cover"


Ok. I buy one Tritanium for one billion from my alt at a different station and transfer the ISK that way...


I agree. This proposal fails, too. That is, there are workarounds not limited to over-buys on alt-items in obscure market locations and more straight-forward contractual over-buys.

It seems to me that the problem with the Margin Trading skill is the issuance of leverage without collateral... There's no security backing up the debt that is granted.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#85 - 2013-11-21 21:09:34 UTC
Simc0m wrote:
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
This is often coupled with contracts to sell their goods, or with goods located in a different station in system.

That's not a margin trading scam. "Order cancel scams" are a completely different kind of scam whereby the buy order does not FAIL due to insufficient isk but is manually canceled after the sell contract is accepted.


Nope.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#86 - 2013-11-21 21:21:20 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:

A second possibility, which emerged from the discussion with the CSM, was built around marking orders in the market interface based on whether or not they were placed using margin trading. This would mean that when you place a buy order you would have to decide whether that would be a 'guaranteed' order or not, and then it would be marked (colored or check boxed or something) in the market interface so that people would know whether there was risk involved in trying to fill the order. This has several problems also, including: making legitimate market activity seem shady, making the interface more confusing, adding clicks for people placing orders and also costing new players money by steering them away from cheaper orders because of fear of scams.


I find this an acceptable thing to implement...

However, does anyone believe this will solve anything?

As a legitimate trader that places buy orders in market hubs and mission/production/harvesting systems, players are going to sell to the highest buyer (they don't even get a choice). As a trader maximizing my isk potential, I'm very rarely going to choose to setup an order up-fronting the full value when I can hold on to my isk instead, and I really, really, really doubt other marketeers will too. As such, 90% of buy orders will still be flagged as "placed using margin trading". The 10% that aren't will be unskilled players or off-the-beaten-path traders luring people to their system. My point: To any new player, they will still experience 99.9% of all market buy orders being fulfilled regardless of the Margin Trade Flag. This will result in the same situation we have now:

Buy orders are not guaranteed. Players will assume they are valid, and will continue to fall for the margin trade scam.

At the end of the day, unless you prevent incompletable buy orders from appearing on the market, CCP Needs to drive home the notion that "Buy orders are NOT guaranteed".



Berluth Luthian
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#87 - 2013-11-21 21:23:20 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Berluth Luthian wrote:
IRL, there is such a thing as 'financial criminals'. Why not make people who break contracts get a criminal standings penalty and maybe even a faction standing penalty to the NPC broker's corp through whom it was issued. It could be proportional to the ammount that they scam/steal. Allow scamming to continue, but create a kind of cost/risk to it that makes it harder to do. If the person who issues you a contract has a significantly poor rating, then they could be a scammer.



Two points:

a.) Killrights on the player if you sell to their buy order and the order fails.... This would be awesome... but pragmatically people would easily avoid it using alts.

b.) The amount of isk you pay in brokers fees is dependent on your standings with the NPC owning the station. Failed buy orders resulting in standings hits would increase brokers fees and the cost of setting this up. Pragmatically though, the profit from a well-executed margin trade scam will trivialize these fees.

Arthur Aihaken wrote:
If a market order fails, the player should forfeit their escrow for that buy order and their Margin Trading skill gets reset to I.


You can drain the isk in your escrow by selling yourself items right after you set up the buy order. This is often done to prevent clever marketeers claiming the isk in your escrow account when you setup an obnoxiously overpriced buy order.


The biggest thing that I think standings effects would do though is increase the transaction costs and risks for the margin trader. For every scam he wants to set up, he has to pay a fee, for every one that fails that's sunk costs. For every person that looks at his bio and sees negative sec status, that's one less customer. He may be clever enough to turn a profit still, but he has to be extremely efficient at it, and he has to deal with the many costs of doing dirty business.
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
#88 - 2013-11-21 21:27:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Michael Harari
mynnna wrote:
Destoya wrote:
I'm all for the removal of the margin trading scam; I think something that appears to work in the market UI (selling a valuable item in the case of the scam) should work. Scams should in my opinion require some human error (ex selling 2 plex for 1 or w/e), not just not understanding how the orders work.


Gonna get out in front here and say that this is my viewpoint exactly. Scams are cool, scams that work because the game is lying to you or because the interface is bad/unclear rather than because you talked someone out of their stuff, less so. But wrecking the many legitimate uses of the skill is also not cool, so let's hear your ideas.


I too agree with this completely.

If a player lies to get your isk, awesome, thats EVE.

If the interface lies to get your isk, that should probably get looked at.

On the same point, this is the main reason the in game font should be fixed so that different letters always look different.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#89 - 2013-11-21 21:28:55 UTC

Here's kind of a low-overhead addendum to Trevor's idea:
Rather than have the market auto-populate red and yellow and green orders. How about we setup a market query function.

Want to know the status of a buy order... right click and query the order. At this point, the "broker" double checks if funds are available for completing the transaction.

If funds are available, it gives you the green light.
If funds are NOT available to complete the minimum order, it automatically cancels the order.

The querry function should cost you.... say 50k isk to perform.

Now the players can vet the market on their own, it doesn't cause nearly as much crazy overhead in market systems, and we can all have our margin trade orders and enjoy them too!
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#90 - 2013-11-21 21:30:16 UTC
Berluth Luthian wrote:
IRL, there is such a thing as 'financial criminals'. Why not make people who break contracts get a criminal standings penalty and maybe even a faction standing penalty to the NPC broker's corp through whom it was issued. It could be proportional to the ammount that they scam/steal. Allow scamming to continue, but create a kind of cost/risk to it that makes it harder to do. If the person who issues you a contract has a significantly poor rating, then they could be a scammer.


No because of scams. There are some people who create juicy couriers in lowsec on kickout stations with just enough m3 that you cannot use frigs or stabbed haulers/cloaky haulers and then they catch the hauler and kill it on station. After that the courier taker has to cancel the contract. I don't see why these people should be punished twice; once by losing the collateral and secondly by penalizing their standing.

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
Lethin
Gold Star Red Swords and White Shield
#91 - 2013-11-21 21:37:28 UTC
Why not ad a debt option to margin sales? I'm allowed to hit 50% debt of that buy order before all my buy orders are cancelled with fees. Characters in debt cannot be deleted.

Then address the bigger issue of throw away accounts... If ccp is serious about anti botting.
Berluth Luthian
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#92 - 2013-11-21 21:42:56 UTC
Alternatively, I've always wished that Eve had a kind of 'liabilities/debt' wallet.

You could make a few different kind of entries.

One account in it would be 'outstanding accounts receivable'. On it would be possible payments for sell orders. It would also include any incoming bills, but also would include any failed contracts/orders that did not get your your assets back (you lost money). This final part of the ledger would also be reflected on any other players in an accounts payable wallet.

This wallet would include market buy orders less deposits (market debt), but also, any private debt (owed money for failed contracts).

Then you could make a mechanic to find out players' private debt, however this debt could also be indirectly 'forgiven'. A player could pay an NPC corp to effectively put a bounty up on themselves for something like a portion of what has to be forgiven. If a player owes private persons 5 billion isk, they have to pay 1 Billion isk to the NPC corp who then puts up a 750 million isk bounty on this player. Then the 5 billion isk debt is 'forfeited'. Accounts are cleared, and the bounty effectively assumes the debt. Players could also sell their debt to their debtors in the form of kill rights possibly too?
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#93 - 2013-11-21 21:43:15 UTC
Lethin wrote:
Why not ad a debt option to margin sales? I'm allowed to hit 50% debt of that buy order before all my buy orders are cancelled with fees. Characters in debt cannot be deleted.

Then address the bigger issue of throw away accounts... If ccp is serious about anti botting.


Because this is an "Isk Generating Tool".

Let me place a 100b isk buy order for 100 units of trit, putting 24b in escrow. I sell my alt 100 units of trit, and get the 24b in escrow back + 50b isk as that alt hits 50% debt of that buy order. Boom.... I'm living it large.

Since I can buy a 4 plex for about 2b isk... which will pay for 1 month of playtime, and allow me to simultaneously train MT 5 on all three characters... I can repeat this every month making boatloads of isk.
Mei ra'Zhault
Kimotoro Trading Company
#94 - 2013-11-21 22:01:53 UTC
Lukas Rox wrote:
IMO what should be changed is Aura should say something about "dont trust buy orders" in the tutorial:

"Market buy orders can sometimes fail, for example when the buyer does not have enough money to cover the order. Some people can deliberately use this against you."

And that's it I think. If someone didn't run the tutorial, then and only then they can be blamed for their ignorance.


Add high NPC buy orders for a new mission item in tutorial systems which are guaranteed to fail, along with low NPC buy orders a few jumps out which will be filled. Add a tutorial mission where the player must sell this mission item on the market. Problem solved.
Lethin
Gold Star Red Swords and White Shield
#95 - 2013-11-21 22:24:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Lethin
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Lethin wrote:
Why not ad a debt option to margin sales? I'm allowed to hit 50% debt of that buy order before all my buy orders are cancelled with fees. Characters in debt cannot be deleted.

Then address the bigger issue of throw away accounts... If ccp is serious about anti botting.


Because this is an "Isk Generating Tool".

Let me place a 100b isk buy order for 100 units of trit, putting 24b in escrow. I sell my alt 100 units of trit, and get the 24b in escrow back + 50b isk as that alt hits 50% debt of that buy order. Boom.... I'm living it large.

Since I can buy a 4 plex for about 2b isk... which will pay for 1 month of playtime, and allow me to simultaneously train MT 5 on all three characters... I can repeat this every month making boatloads of isk.



This Is very true.
add show info on buy orders that displays info on the order. Wether or not it's marginal, if the issuer can still afford to buy, and how much escrow has paid out on that order?
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#96 - 2013-11-21 22:26:30 UTC
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
How about this:

Add an "fillableUnits" field to every order (how many he can actually buy with his current wallet), and a "minimum ISK required" field to each player (the amount needed to completely fill the largest margin order he has outstanding)

Each time a player's wallet amount changes and he had < minimum ISK required either before or after the change, check his active margin buy orders and update the fillableUnits field to be the actual number of units he can buy with the current content of his wallet.

If fillableUnits < minimum units required, display the order in red and do not let a player attempt to fill it.

If fillableUnits < units remaining in the order, display the order in yellow but let it be partially filled.

Send notifications to the buyer when orders go red or yellow.

Recompute the minimum ISK required as needed (for example: fillableUnits changes, or if a margin order is added, cancelled, changed or filled)

At first glance, since most players don't have margin buy orders outstanding, and most of the ones that do aren't playing fancy games and will have > minimum ISK required, this should minimize the cost of implementing the check.

Why bother with the colors? Just do not show the "red" orders on the market at all. As for the "yellow" ones, show only the number of units that can be filled.
Now its just like my idea of suspending any order, or part of any order, that cannot be covered (Starting with the biggest order and working down).
Although I see the need for colors or some indicator to the person who owns the orders. So he can see what orders are active and what orders are suspended pending funds becoming available.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction
Mei ra'Zhault
Kimotoro Trading Company
#97 - 2013-11-21 22:50:20 UTC
Adding a bit to my post above: to "fix" the margin trading scam, you have two options: either remove a feature (margin trading itself) or introduce complexity (by tacking more rules on to margin trading, or adding arcane markings and behaviour to the market UI). Alternatively, simply make a reasonable effort to inform new players about the mechanics as they exist, with the added bonus of reminding them that Eve's idiosyncrasies will surprise them in many ways.

And if people still fall for the margin trading scam after the mechanics have been waved in their face... well, someone was bound to part them from their isk sooner or later.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#98 - 2013-11-21 22:56:16 UTC
Mei ra'Zhault wrote:
Adding a bit to my post above: to "fix" the margin trading scam, you have two options: either remove a feature (margin trading itself) or introduce complexity (by tacking more rules on to margin trading, or adding arcane markings and behaviour to the market UI). Alternatively, simply make a reasonable effort to inform new players about the mechanics as they exist, with the added bonus of reminding them that Eve's idiosyncrasies will surprise them in many ways.

And if people still fall for the margin trading scam after the mechanics have been waved in their face... well, someone was bound to part them from their isk sooner or later.


Actually, I really think this is a "Fix" that doesn't introduce the complexity you suggest, nor require removing the margin trade functionality:

Quote:
Create a Market Query function.

Want to know the status of a buy order... right click and query the order. At this point, the "broker" double checks if funds are available for completing the transaction.

If funds are available, it gives you the green light.
If funds are NOT available to complete the minimum order, it automatically cancels the order.

The querry function should cost you isk to perform (say 50k isk) to limit the "spamming" of this function, while still making it available to everyone.

The ideal result: Players can vet the market on their own. This doesn't require nearly as much crazy overhead in market systems, and we can all continue to use our margin trade orders and enjoy them too!
Mei ra'Zhault
Kimotoro Trading Company
#99 - 2013-11-21 23:04:14 UTC
I missed your post. I'd say that's actually a near-perfect solution.
Xqpvqsvs Qr'atyuqink
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#100 - 2013-11-21 23:45:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Xqpvqsvs Qr'atyuqink
CCP Rise wrote:

The solution we proposed to the CSM initially was based around the idea that if you didn't have enough money in your wallet to back an order, that order would be cancelled.

Cool
And this is the best way to do it, well maybe except of fix where u are placing exact amount of isk into order u are creating. Its simple and easy to understand. Every other way will be time consuming and wont work as good. Reason is simple - world just doesny work like margin trading skill. Cutting this mechanic would fit perfectly in your strategy of nerfing passive income, since currently one guy can place plenty of big buy orders on various of things in Jita and earn plenty of cash by reseling or reprocessing stuff. Even few isk difference can make alot of money, trust me i was a jita trader for over 5 years.

U can get a loan to buy something but you just cant go to shop, say u want to buy this TV and then turn on clocking device near cash register. Thats why we will have allways a problem until u just delete this skill (or maybe u could change it for something usable for example 5% reduction per level on Custom Office taxes, waste reduction on something or ship/module npc repair fee).

U should pay less attention to what CSM is thinking since its not a legitimate source. CSM is all about own interests of few big alliances that forced their people to vote. They got their own interests and dont want certain things that most capsullers would want. For example if u ask them about nerfing mobility and fuel usage of supercaps, u will be alone with your idea man. They will never stand behind idea of cutting ability to move 100 titans and 200 motherships from one edge of map to another in just one OPs with small impact on alliance wallet and logistics guys time (which is just stupid).

p.s amount of people who places really big orders they dont have money and would loose on this change are on lower level than statistical error, while amount of people who got scammed this way at least once, or just tried to sell something, buyer couldnt buy is way way higher.